The war in Ukraine has led to challenges to many of the prevailing main battle tank (MBT) design, philosophy, and doctrine orthodoxies.
In particular, the near impossibility of adopting the Western manoeuvre warfare approach to armoured warfare without air parity, if not air superiority, has been plainly demonstrated.
Of special note has been the impact of uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) and drones on the battlefield. These grew into a “threat vacuum” in which they initially had few natural predators, although it is now being filled rapidly by anti-drone countermeasures. Nevertheless, their introduction has posed some uncomfortable questions.
At the same time, western MBTs—Challenger 2 and 3, Leopard 2, and M1A2 Abrams—have become highly sophisticated and increasingly expensive, to the extent that they are much less numerous in their respective armies than we might wish. With a ballpark price of $15-$20 million per tank, few countries have the means to procure large fleets of them.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
So, with MBTs now ever more complex and sophisticated and expensive, and therefore procured in smaller numbers, is the West in danger of putting all its eggs in one basket, as it were?
Traditionally, MBT design has been based on the triad of firepower, mobility, and protection (plus reliability and availability if you want to extend the parameters). Nations have given differing emphases to these attributes depending on their perceptions of lessons learned from previous conflicts, primarily the Second World War.
Britain, for example, reflecting on its tanks having proven to be inferior in firepower and protection to their German counterparts, majored in those attributes at the expense of mobility, as exemplified by Centurion and Chieftain. Germany, on the other hand, having been overwhelmed and outmanoeuvred by larger numbers of Soviet T-34s and US-built Shermans, went for mobility in their Leopard 1 and 2 models at the expense of protection.
Protection, however, has usually been focussed on the frontal arc of MBTs, where historically, direct-fire anti-tank weapons have been most likely to impact. The experience from Ukraine, however, and before that, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict suggests that this may no longer be the case. MBTs are vulnerable to attack from 360 degrees from smart weapons and also from above and below. In effect, the threat spectrum is a sphere around the vehicle.
Now, the historical practices of anti-mine techniques and the proliferation of active protection systems (APS) and counter-UAV defences have provided increased levels of protection against these threats, but perhaps it is time for a more fundamental reassessment of how MBTs might be protected. Does it make sense anymore to have the heaviest armour in the frontal arc? Should it not be spread evenly across the vehicle?
Tank-versus-tank encounters have been rare in the Ukraine war, and most losses are attributable to the aforementioned drones, smart missiles, artillery rounds, and anti-tank guided weapons (ATGW), which can arrive from virtually any direction, especially in urban combat. This surely calls for equal and all-around protection, with the high-velocity tank round threat at a lesser level.
At the same time, the widespread adoption of autoloaders for future designs and the likelihood that they will follow the Russian T-14 Armata innovation of a fully automated remotely controlled turret with the crew housed in an armoured ‘capsule’ in the hull presents other possibilities. In addition to weight reduction it also allows for a lowering of the tank’s profile. But it does not reduce the tank’s vulnerability to attack from above (or below, for that matter). And I do realise that currently remote turrets are not cheap.
Weight reduction is important. Ukrainian crews of western MBTs in the current conflict have commonly complained that their NATO-sourced tanks are too heavy, weighing 65-80 tonnes in the theatre. This affects their strategic and operational mobility, where transportation infrastructure like bridges cannot support them, and battlefield and tactical mobility, where they routinely bog down in the softer terrain, unlike their Russian-designed equivalents.
Accordingly, I believe there is an argument to be made for a paradigm shift in Western designs towards smaller, less expensive, and more numerous MBTs in the 40-45 tonne category featuring remotely controlled turrets, crews in heavily protected compartments in the hull away from ammunition storage, a more even distribution of armour to counter the 360-degree threat, and extensive use of APS and counter UAV systems.
Might it be possible to procure, say, three or four such smaller, less-sophisticated MBTs for the same cost (purchase or lease) as one current/near-future Western design? This would help avoid the “eggs all in one basket” criticism and ensure basic redundancy and resilience in the likelihood of combat attrition, plus, of course, enhanced crew survivability.
The next obvious step might be to look at further developments taking advantage of AI and automation. A future generation of tank design could incorporate a “mother ship and loyal wingmen” concept whereby one crewed vehicle might control, say, up to half a dozen uncrewed semi-autonomous surface vehicles (USVs) or subordinate tanks. This idea is a familiar one in future aircraft design already.
This arrangement would probably, initially at least, embed the “man-in-the-loop” facility that modern Western sensibilities might demand but clearly have the potential to reduce the possibility of human casualties in the West’s modern casualty-averse mentality.
All of which leads to further questions; does the “mother ship” require a tank gun at all, or will self-defence weapons suffice? Indeed, does it have to be a tank in the first place, and does it actually have to be physically on the battlefield? Could the “loyal wingmen” be controlled from a container at some army camp in Germany or the UK, far away from the dangers of the frontline? It already happens with aerial drones so why not with their ground-based cousins?
The answer is, of course, that it’s not quite the same thing. Seeing everything from the air is one thing; doing the same thing at ground level is quite another. Anyone who has ever tried to direct a tank through unfamiliar territory whilst closed down will know what I mean. The loss of situational awareness is, and would be, immense. That’s why tank commanders of all nations have usually operated with the commander’s hatch open, and also why so many become casualties. There’s no substitute for head out, not that I’m aware of anyway.
So, where does that leave us? My hypothesis is that modern Western MBTs are too big, too heavy, too expensive, and too vulnerable to attack from any direction for modern armoured warfare. They are akin to putting all your goods in the shop window, and you’ll never be able to afford enough of them or to replace the losses that will inevitably occur.
The future might see larger numbers of smaller, less sophisticated (perhaps), less expensive, and lighter tanks with built-in redundancy and resilience to casualties. Should they be semi-autonomous or remotely controlled, so much the better. A concomitant reduction in human losses will make us less casualty-averse and able to sustain operations properly.
Will we see this in the near future? The probable answer is no. Britain’s sclerotic equipment procurement environment suggests otherwise. In any case, the way things are going, the UK may well be out of the MBT game altogether within the next ten years unless the government and MoD sharpen up their ideas.
I hope not, but I wouldn’t bet my house on it not being so.
In fact, do we really need MBTs at all? There are plenty of alternative options.
Is there? Please elaborate.
The precision that the tank direct fire have, can now be achieved with indirect fire missiles, drones, guided artillery rounds.
Better than the tank round that have only one trajectory possible because it is only direct fire it now can come from many more directions and at much longer range.
So as the author of this article says, the armor of the frontal aspect of the tank makes less sense today. In essence the issue is moot, moving the battleship side armor to other places also did not fixed the battleship issue. The fight was not anymore 20-30km range naval artillery, likewise it is also not anymore only tanks fighting tanks in direct fire at 3km distance.
And all of that has to go through the chain of comd and then be assigned to that fire mission! Ask the PBI what they prefer something that takes time to arrive or a tank next door that can react to the situation in real time.
There will be still AFV nearside, just don’t need to be a tank.
You really haven’t got a clue have you? Can I suggest you go back to your comics!
spot on Jacko!
Surely that’s doctrine because you can’t start deleting grid squares until you’ve double checked that none of your people are there?
But we’re entering an era when the person doing the deleting can be sat next to someone observing the target with a drone, so is it not possible that these rules could change?
Personally I hope we don’t plan according to our crystal balls, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see tanks used less and less.
You have a point but you can’t have a drone operator deciding wily nily where he is going to dump a lot of stuff that goes bang without the bloke who actually needs it saying where he wants it!
The communications setup is open between a drone unit and the frontline units, it possible that bataillon have a drone company.
A drone is now an asset like a mortar or an ATGM
And I said any different where?
Where did I say it differently?
Easy.
We have used our tanks an awful lot on deployed operations since any point in time you care to mention – 1956 or 1989. More so than most either complex platforms…including ships, submarines, air superiority fighters.
Explain how the large majority of Ukrainian AFV and Russian AFV were not destroyed by tanks…
So what has that got to do with the conversation?are we discussing what has killed the most AFVs? Don’t think so!
That is the point of a tank existence or any weapon: having an effect in battlefield.
If other systems take most of it there is no point for its existence for the price of its cost.
A battleship can still be useful today for some operations but its cost do not compensate that benefit.
Future tanks will probably have armor more distributed since every point can now be hit, will resort to APS+Anti drone as main defense instead of armor – basically the protection will be defined by incomplete and not perfect APS interceptions damage and will have indirect guided fire capabilities. The mais battle tank of today is dead and with it the kinetic
round.
The current ones will exists for more 50 years or even more- B-52 is approaching 70 years in service. But it will not be the central pin of any army like before.
I believe the experimental Leopard 2 with auto loader & anti-drone RWS, also comes with dual ATGM. Current direct fire tank can’t hit what it can’t directly see. It doesn’t matter who sees it, so long as someone does. That is the new reality.
Agreed. Yeah i remember had option for 2 loiter drones or missiles.
These views regarding firepower are partly true, but this leave aside an element: you are a soldier, you are asked to move forward. How do you move to the next trench? By suppressing all infantry? It seems not so easy to achieve. Men tend to prefer moving behind tanks rather than in front of them, because bullets. Tanks don’t fear bullets. Men do. I agree it is possible to destroy many firepower stronghold with drones and artillery, but I don’t think it is doable for all of them, neither for every firing positions of infantry. Adding a SHORAD layer and breaching equipments make more sense. And the rest of the article seem also true: T34 was better to win a war than KV2. I think it is still true today, even if losses of T34 where high. May be we should consider that we will lose tanks in a war and try to limit the losses instead and wanting to avoid them altogether which led us to this inefficient situation. By the way, this article reflects exactly the debate on MGCS between France and Germany, France looking for light, Germany looking for heavy. The debate has settled on a tank fully equipped at no more than 50t.
Tanks do not just have direct fire trajectory rounds , they also have the capacity to fire indirect at targets , well at least the British tanks ( challenger) do , and I suspect Leopard and Abraham’s do as well .
Tanks need reassessment since Ukraine so possibly blessing we currently upgrade a small number of chally 3s and consider future.
Worried about drones? We are investing in anti-drone systems.
There is no blessing in having a tiny CR3 MBT fleet which will be just 38% of the size of the preceeding post-Cold War CR2 fleet at its purchase.
With limited APS buy i only see deployment of 1/3 fleet.
The combat AFV of the future, to justify the investment needs to be able to do precision indirect fire.
After the Challenger 3 and upgrade of 2 there is no next tank project in the line which tells that British Army do not consider it essential.
We all heard a very long time ago that just 60 APS had been procured for the CR3 fleet. I have no idea if that figure still stands.
I wish you would stop berating the tank because it either cannot do indirect fire or only does it sub-optimally. We have mortars and artillery (tube and rocket) to do indirect fire, as I have said many times. Your oft-repeated comments suggests that you do not understand what a tank is designed to do – it is not to be an extra artillery piece.
An SPG is optimised to do indirect fire and has very different design characteristics to a tank. I am happy to explain the different design philosophy between a tank and a SPG.
My Mazda car cannot race at Silverstone – it is designed for a different purpose. I am not disappointed about that.
BTW, do you think it a waste of money that expensive artillery either cannot do direct fire or do it only sub-optimally? You really need to be consistent with your ‘left field’ ideas.
The MoD is an observer to the largely Franco-German MGCS tank project, so you cannot say that there is no British interest in a future tank project. dstl has been working on novel electric armour and ceramic plating and a whole load of other stuff they don’t want you to know about. That is for future armoured vehicles including tanks.
A word about the timeline – we have not had even one production standard CR3 built yet (just prototypes) and you are complaining (incorrectly) that there are no future tank projects in the line. We are doing pre-Concept work for the tank after CR3 – that is good. We need to do main Concept work in around 2030 in order to field a follow-on tank in the 2040s. We are ahead of the timeline for ‘CR4’. If around 2030 there is little more being said about the tank after CR3, then you can get worried.
Colonel Stuart writes a long article explaining how future MBTs could be designed to minimise their vulnerability to UAVs (drones). You state in a few words that perhaps we don’t need MBTs? Why? Because of the drone threat? Well then, design tanks to be less vulnerable, as Stuart says. Create and field anti-drone systems that are either tank-mounted or are operating close to the tanks.
Miker, do you know what tanks bring to armoured manouevre warfare? The ability to deliver shock action, to provide intimate direct fire support to armoured or mechanised infantry, to destroy enemy medium and heavy armour and strongpoints, to seize and dominate vital and key ground (with Infantry alongside).
The MBT is a highly protected, highly mobile, large-calibre direct fire weapon system. If you binned the tank, what would you replace it with that has those attributes? Are they contained in a single platform? What are these alternative options?
So we have tanks to counter enemy tanks in peer to peer which important deterrence but hardly used? Eg Iraq.otherwise use smaller armoured vehicles further down the food chain?
Not sure I follow you. Sometimes tanks are used in a deterrent role – arguably BAOR was all about presenting a deterrent to the Soviet Union and her Warsaw Pact allies, but if deterrence failed, they would be used. The 30 Challenger tanks in Estonia on Op CABRIT are part of a NATO deterrent force, along with other Battle group (BG) assets.
Equipment on a deterrence duty are used. The CASD Vanguard class SSBN is being used.
We have used tanks more actively and agressively many times since 1950. I am sure I don’t need to once again list the number of times we have deployed tanks overseas on expeditionary operations, mostly warfighting or stabilisation operations. We have used our tanks a considerable amount.
Use smaller armoured vehicles down the food chain? Smaller or lighter armoured vehicles such as armoured recce vehicles, IFVs and APCs are also part of a deployed force, whether a deterrent force or a warfighting/stabilisation force, which includes tanks.
Hi Miker, I too would like to know your alternatives to the MBT.
Hi folks hope all is well!
I suppose as a nation we need to weigh up what we need MBTs for? After all we have no land boarder to protect. Of course we may require a number of tanks for expeditionary tasks and used in a conflict somewhere around the globe. But realistically, and you experts can advise me. How many MBTs have we deployed in recent conflicts? In the event of a European conflict, our allies would no doubt be ready to deploy their own tanks and we may provide support with our limited number. Various numbers have been brandished on this site, possibly 300/400 appers to be considered a reasonable number. Then of course there’s the issue of personnel to keep MBTs running with experience.
Cheers
George
Whenever this topic comes up it’s explained there always has been threats to tanks since they appeared on the battlefield! Measure to counter drones will evolve and then the next threat will appear. It’s never ending.
Yes infact a very large number of soviet tanks were ambushed and destroyed by old men and boys armed with very basic shaped charge weapons with a range of 50meters.
We can’t keep cutting assets and abilities and depending on our allies to provide them, and what happens if one day we need them and don’t have them?
What needs to happen is for tanks to become lighter and cheaper. To be honest I think we should join in the European Main Ground Combat System with Germany and France, and get other European countries into it as well. The more involved, the more get built, the cheaper they become, and we might be able to push into maybe 300 tanks in future (obviously need to train more crews if this were to happen).
What IMO we should avoid doing is building a new tank by ourselves to replace Chally 3 (which itself is a stopgap design) turn out to be completely bespoke and gold-plated but extremely expensive, and only end up with 100 or so of them.
Go in with a European project for it but ensure that, at the very least, our own tanks are built here, and then aim for 300 tanks.
We have a long and unsuccessful history of reinvent our own squared wheel…
Ajax, Morpheus sa80…
Future tanks definitely need to be lighter (Dr Jack Watling postulates 54t as the ideal weght), less vulnerable to modern threats, and cheaper.
MGS is unlikely to be that light and we have Observor status on that programme.
We do need to collaborate internationally on the tank after CR3, which itself is an Anglo-German collaboration.
Where does this idea come from that MBT’s are not needed for Expeditionary Warfare? They whre developed FOR expeditionary warfare. Not to defend static borders.
As for when we deployed MBT’s, pretty much the only place we DIDN’T deploy tanks to was Afghan, and even then, others did.
The idea comes from the fact there are many more ways now of getting its effects. Like i have said before, if tank don’t changes it has no future.
There is no future for an hugely expensive vehicle that can only do direct fire, when you can get same effects with indirect fire.
There is also no reason to only armor some parts of the tank when with a guided ammunition -a mere 50$ HEAT hand grenade attached to a drone – you can proposedly hit vulnerable parts.
The land combat changed due to significant precision of indirect fires.
When I want an uniformed opinion from you I’ll make sure to highlight that I want waffle in my original comment.
You’ve been corrected multiple times by serving and veteran soldiers on your misconceptions about how tanks operate, yet still persist with being thick as mince.
Run along now, maybe you’ll find someone stupid enough to buy your bullshit.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks”
Cheers Dern, Much appreciated that why I always ask you experts on military issues.
Experts don’t think all the same about a subject.
That rules you out then doesn’t it nobber!
“Logic tries to catch you but you run too fast…”
MBTs have a crucial and rather obvious role in 3rd Armoured Division (our warfighting division) which we assign to NATO. What’s this twaddle about land borders? We invented the tank for expeditionary operations deploying them in 1916. They have only ever been deployed in action in an expeditionary context. We did not then and still do not procure tanks specifically for Military Home Defence of the UK Base. Much other military hardware is intended for expeditionary operations, including most of that which is operated by the RN.
How many tanks have we deployed on recent expeditionary ops? 221 CR1s on GW1, over 120 CR2s on GW2, a good number in the Balkans on several operations throughout the 1990s. About 30 on Op CABRIT now, which might ramp up from a BG to a brigade.
Why not ask how many carriers, frigates or submarines we have deployed on kinetic (shooting) operations? or Typhoons in an air superiority role? Answer – not many!
Challenger tanks have probably been our most deployed complex platform in recent times.
Of course our NATO allies also have tanks. They also have aircraft, ships and submarines. So what? We all bring something to the party.
We bought 386 Challenger 2 tanks after careful post-Cold war analysis, done after the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 – and written into the summer 1990 Options for Change review. Reductions since then have been entirely due to Treasury pressure to make savings, not because of any reduced global threat. The world is more dangerous now than in 1990. So, in theory we still need at least 386 gun tanks.
We currently have an active tank fleet of 213 tanks. We have the personnel required to operate and maintain our tanks – they don’t need to be recruited – they never went away.
Cheers Graham, that’s why I ask you experts on this site for military issues which I find helpful when talking with those that easily criticize military costs and use. Makes sense what you say!
The 148 C3 tanks we will get are all we need, when have ever since 60’s needed more? i know some want us to have 800 or some want us to have none. Neither of those two things are going to happen. We will have tanks along as others do,
A vast Army full of tanks etc is not needed any more. If look back just having 148 C3’s is not great but its realistic and we use tanks very diffirently than Ukraine and Russia.
We are an island, we have no empire, to get to use you have go through most of NATO.
We have BGs up on the northern flank of NATO so I would suggest they are actually going to on the front line!
I know, but why would we need vast tank armies? the tank is poor in defence, A static tank is wasted. Are you saying we need more thanks? for what? please feel free to explain
Can I be trite and say to do the job we want the Army to do?
The trouble is I get the impresssion they (both Army and politicians) don’t even know what that job is- and haven’t for some time.
I would suggest that needs deciding first not numbers.
However 148 doesn’t ‘seem’ a lot to me , not considering attritional losses that would of course ensue in any conflict
I would suggest the effective mass would soon become ..well not so effective.
i totally agree, 148 does seem to not account for reserves/losses etc, and yes those that are meant to know do not really seem to know what they want the Army to do.
I doubt numbers will go up much at the most the Army without reserves will reach 80/90,000.
I do hear of a shift away from the entire world to a more NATO in Europe role. We as a nation can simply not be every where and have asked too much of the Armed forces we have and just expected it to get on with out whilst under funded,
We need to stick to protecting our own back yard leave the Pacific to others we have no bases there, reason to be there.
148 does account for attrition reserve but a very small figure, maybe 20+.
Well that is not great but better than i had been informed.
To be fair, the SDSR2010 mandated deploying one Division for best effort.
That has not officially changed, just been nibbled by successive government cuts.
So I think the Army do know what the job is.
Maintaining the current number of around 220 Tanks to furnish the current 3 Regiments plus a small reserve would be fine for the ORBAT that we currently have.
Cheers Daniele- I expected you or one of the other more knowledgable posters to pop in .
I id recall having a similar discussion previously (maybe with Graham) where it was mooted that circa 230-240 ish would be a suitable number.
So am I correct in assuming thats for 3 regiments as opposed to the 2 that 148 would service- or am I off the mark there?
Yes, 3. There are still officially 3 regiments of Tanks in the RAC as the KRH, Kings Royal Hussars, has been delayed from converting to Armoured Cavalry due to the Ajax business.
I’ve no idea what state it’s in.
This was originally one of Carters plans re the strike Brigades.
As our Armoured Infantry Brigades have now dropped from 3 to 2, the 3rd Tank Regiment in the future planned ORBAT has no future.
I’d like it retained, in a modified ORBAT and placed somewhere. Dern had a good idea for it in one of her ORBATs but who knows what the Army think.
On the 148, that’s still wafer thin even for 2 Regiments.
Hi Daniele I recall there was a Yeomanry reserve unit as well? Unsure if that’s still the case.
RWY. They do not have their own vehicles but replacement crews AFAIK.
thanks Mate
The job is the one that the politicians deploy the army on. It changes, it is varied, it can be anywhere. The army has to be prepared for anything and everything…and generally is. Thank goodness.
You are right that 148 does not give us many attritional reserve tanks, maybe about 20+?
I don’t think I said we need “ vast” tank armies that ended with the demise of BAOR however we still need a moderate number even if it was enough to equip at least one more tank Regt.
i am corrected, 148 is not ideal as what about reserves/losses i agree on some more would be wiser
I’m beginning to think the small number of CH3s could be fortuitous if the current MBT philosophy is under question. The Ukraine war has highlighted how seemingly simple anti tank systems can render these machines dead without too much trouble. In truth, this is in our back yard the very territory NATO MBTs were designed for. However, according to a fellow contributor BOAR exercises mostly in Germany were conducted on either tarmac, concrete and firmish farm tracks thus able to manage in the eyes of observers. That said, Ukraine is a different land mass with less infrastructure causing regular strandings of Western tanks on open land. If this is the case, why hadn’t the issue of ground suitability been raised before now? Ukraine is probably closer to Russian land conditions than Germany.
Sadly most on here seem obsessed with numbers, those days are gone, its right kit not vast amounts of kit that is needed, smart war fighting not slogging it out.
We have not faced a peer enemy in 79 years , yet we seem to think we have have it all when its simply not the case
We have faced near-peer opponents:
North Korea and China in the Korean War, 1950-53
The Egyptian armed forces in Suez, 1956
The Iraq army was considered to be a near-peer opponent in both Gulf Wars, not because they were going to be exceptional, but because it was a large, organised State army with all the equipment we could possibly face, unlike an irregular opponent.
Everyone on this site knows that we don’t have all the kit we need!
You seem happy to have fewer tanks. I am sure the England football team would rather have played Spain with 8 men!
The first anti-tank system was fielded in May 1918 – a bolt-action rifle, the Mauser 1918 T-Gewehr, that fired a 13.2 mm cartridge with a solid bullet that could penetrate the thin armour and destroy the engine or ricochet inside, killing occupants.
The first shoulder launched bazooka was fielded in early WW2.
The first ATGM (a French equipment) in 1959.
The tank has countered the above counter-systems with varying degrees of success or revised TTP has helped where necessary. Dealing with drones is no exception.
Who knows why some people had not heard of Rasputitsa? It affects all tanks, but heavier ones more so. Should Ukraine have declined heavier western tanks then?
The modern MBT may have just become too big and too expensive to be a viable concept going into the future. Crewless turrets and advanced material to lighten and improve foot print weight should be foremost in a rethink. CH3 will still enable the Army to deliver a heavy punch and 140 + units maybe enough. The advantages of thinking smaller and lighter with Boxer like interchangeability to expand field options seems to be beneficial for everyone.
Agreed. 3 minimum.
3 Armoured Brigades is hardly “VAST.”
Nor is a tank “poor” in defence. Defence does not mean remaining static.
Sadly the plan is 2 armoured brigades..148 challenger 3s will not equip 3 brigades.
That’s the point I’m making. Most argue for 3 brigades, that’s hardly a “vast army” you know what I mean?
Indeed three is a bare minimum peacetime force. The present plan for 12th armoured brigade and 20th armoured brigade..with one regiment of MBTs each quite frankly pathetic. It means the British army cannot sustain a long term deployment of one armoured brigade…that’s not great..they should really move to three armoured 3 brigades in the 3rd armoured division each with an MBT equipped regiment, by preserving kings royal hussars as an MBT regiment.
Yes, split 1 DSR into a third Armoured Brigade with 1x Ajax, 1x CR3, and 2 Infantry Battalions (take 1 of the infantry battalions from 20 AI, and then take one of the 6 infantry battalions from 4 Light div. QOGLR’s move over from 101 log, REME is already in the brigade, and you have a fighting formation. The third cavalry unit, either on jackal or ajax whichever is preferred becomes a divisional asset.
That would be a very sensible way to go….so clearly no hope of ever happening 😒
Exactly this.
It is not a big problem, put Ajax and Boxers with NLOS missiles. Increase guided artillery, put a drone company in every battalion(Regiment).
Martin, only you are talking about vast tank armies, no-one else is. Ukraine sometimes use tanks in defence and are well impressed with CR2 when it is in that role (it certainly is not poor in defence). Not really our way of doing things, but their experience is real and valid.
Tank people go on about tanks and how great they are, i’m ex Arty arty wins every time, attack/defence/interdiction have as many tanks as you want. In Ukraine Artillery stops attacks, suppresses enemy Arty,
To be honest not bothered about how many tanks. tube artillery and MLRS are what Ukraine needed and rely on not dug in tanks. .
Our philosophy is Combined Arms manouevre warfare when fighting a peer or near-peer opponent equipped with mobile, armoured forces.
Every arm supports each other. Arty is great and we do not have anything like enough of it. But it doesn’t do everything – it does not seize and hold ground – tanks with accompanying infantry does. Arty is a CS arm – it supports combat conducted by the Combat Arms.
oh i agree, ewe do have enough of any thing. Lets hope we are never called to the test before all the new kit comes on line.
180 British Challenger 1s were deployed in the 1991 Iraq War.
Are we ever likely to re run that war? no, as we have a small;er Army we do not need 180 MBT’s, The army was nearly twice the size then. We will never have an army that big in peace time again.
So a smaller Army needs less tanks. etc.
We already have re-run that war, and arguing about the over-all army size is a red herring. In 1991 the British army had 3 Armoured Divisions, only 1 of them deployed to Iraq.
That 180 represents the single division, while another 300 tanks remained in Germany.
Today, the British Army maintains: 1 Armoured Division for expeditionary warfare. So; that 180 number, despite the reduction of the over all size of the army, remains relevant.
The fact is that, sooner or later, we’re going to have to increase the size of the Army. Everyone knows this, it’s just a matter of when and what shape it takes.
And we can’t just ramp up numbers of tanks that quickly, either. If we have 148 tanks, then war hits and we need to increase tank numbers quickly, it won’t happen.
And you can’t say we’ll never do another war on that scale again. The whole point is to be prepared.
Also, deploying a single armoured division is not all that large a scale. The 1991 Gulf War invasion feature no less than 11 coalition divisions.
There are only so many things the Army can do, we can not fight every war, re fight any war, i know people like a might Army etc but we have pick our battles with what we have or will have. We are slipping down the NATO scale when it comes to ground forces size.
Pouring money just make the Army bigger is not always the answer its about what the Army can do in the real world. We are not the world power we were 30 years ago.
More people leave the Army than join it, buying lots of tanks will do nothing if you can not crew them, just big lists of numbers are not the way ahead. Bigger issues than kit numbers going on here.
(The joke being that the RAC is actually pretty good for manpower and could easily have 3 Challenger Regiments, but you don’t really seem terrible familiar with the orbats in question).
We can’t refight every wear, but we need to be able to fight a high end manuever war. That’s the base line, it’s much easier to re-orbat down from an Armoured Formation for a relevant COIN depoloymant than to create new armoured formations. Ergo: A armoured division is the objective that we should strive for.
This isn’t “buying loads of tanks” as you so dismissively, and ignorantly, describe it. It’s giving us the tools needed to deploy a minimum warfighting force.
Maybe fewer people would sign off if we felt like we are actually being backed to fight a war, instead of having Martin demand we restrict ourselves to being able to fight a low intensity COIN conflict?
And what about their all arms support then who mans that the. Orbats are there for puffed up people to brag on paper we have enough and are always back filled so just saying we have this and that formation means nothing. I’m not a tankie so you may know RAC manning levels but what about the rest of the Army? Tanks on their own are not much good no matter where or how many you have.
Fix retention recruitment ammo supply, air defence, Artillery and lack of a tracked IFV while you beefing up the number of tanks
I love how you ask a question about CS and CSS (not all arms support) and then get huffy about Orbats. You litterally asked a question about how to orbat the formation.
We have plenty of RAC regiments that are manned, to the point where there are obvious candidates within 3 UK Div’s ORBAT (yes you’ll have to live with that dirty word) that could easily be converted to CR3 with no uptick in manpower in the RAC.
As for CS and CSS, it would probably mean QOGLR’s re-subordinating to 1 Armoured Brigade from 101 Log.
You say we are not the world power we were thirty years ago, but our economic place is only worse seen against the growth of China and India. We are still a G7 economy, with a place on the UN Security Council, etc, etc. So do you mean that militarily?
You seem to be arguing that because we didn’t put the money in, the Army has shrunk. And because the Army has shrunk, we don’t need to put any money in! You could make the same argument for the status quo with an army of one man. That then would be the real world, and your argument would suggest it was still enough because it was all about what that one man could do.
There has to enter the question of what the government wants the army to be able to do, and to an extent what Parliament wants the army to be able to do as governments are too fleeting. Of course you are right about kit numbers versus people. The goverment dicating military numbers separately from both budget and needs is simply wrong. Nevertheless, both have to come from realistic expectations by the government.
We if you look at Land power are not a world power, government wanted a smaller Army, but did not cut the things it thinks the Army can still do. Just chucking money at it will not fix it. How ever to any enemy we look a bit of shambles ground forces wise.
We’re on the verge of a wider European war right now. Gambling with the future of our nation & alliances by maintaining hopelessly inadequate force levels is totally reckless, handing power & initiative to our enemies. Russia, China, Iran, NK etc are watching us with evil intent & the weaker we make ourselves, the bolder they will act.
i agree, but numbers for number sake does not work and we can not eqiup the army we have, let along increass it, not sure what the answer is but yes looking weak or unprepaired is the worst thing
Were we ever likely to have fought in Iraq or Afghanistan? No one knows what’s going to happen, therefore you prepare for the unknown.a smaller army does not need less tanks it absolutely needs more
if you have more tanks you need more other arms, etc, i agree 148 is not a vast number with no spares/reserves.
With respect to all, its not how many or where.
Like mines, tanks have multiple uses. And with 3 to 5 years flash to bang for even upgrades, it would be stupid to have nothing that can back up infantry in the field. Napoleans dictum was, if you won the battle you can sleep on the battlefield requires not just using the square mile removal service..or flying titchy shaped charges over the ground. You need confidence between Infantry and Fire Support that only comes from eye contact when the ships flying.
Infantry need fire support, Arty which we have given away brings that, they need SRAD which have given away, A tank is for Attack/breakthrough not defense. Any war with Russia by fact they would of attacked is defensive.
Number etc i have no idea off, Win the fire fight is the fist rule of contact. Tanks bring that in advancing but not much else. Arty brings it in defence.
Arty is always ready on FPF fire its the last line in defence of positions, Arty breaks up attacks. lays mine barriers via MLRS AT2. Attacks FUP’s.
Combined arms are what is needed not an up take or one or the other arm.
Obviously you were not about in BAOR then! “The tank is not for defence” funny then that at every defence line back to the Rhine there were multiple hull down positions for tanks to fight in DEFENCE👍
Well not any more, and dig your tanks in, but remember the ammo for them is no longer made. see how long you hold out. Only great defence by tanks was Yom Kippur. 50 years ago When long range ATGM’s/Drones/Guided Artillery were not about.
Its ok i know tank lovers think its the be all and end all.
Are there any hordes approaching then? I only proved that tanks are a means of defence and attack. You drop shorts (planks) were always a peculiar bunch.
Ha , drop shorts! if in my last job i dropped short many people who of had a crap day. Not heard the term planks in a while though.
My whole point is no one weapons system or branch is good on its own, regardless numbers. And sadly our Army is such a mess we lack almost every thing in the right numbers.
Op Granby had us deploy 180 Challengers, Op Telic 120. Neither of those numbers are achievable with a Tank Fleet of 148 since that includes training, and reserves. So there’s your answer right away.
Of course you specified since the 1960’s so I could point to the BAOR.
As for “To get to us they have to get through NATO.” That’s silly, and in ignorance of how we’d fight, or the fact that as we speak we maintain an armoured battlegroup in Estonia.
Its not ignorance we will never have the force size people dream off, never not enough money, no where near enough joining or staying on to man it. We can not just buy kit and say look we got loads of tanks yes but we will rob peter to pay paul we all know that.
People seem obsessed with numbers, not reality
A single Armoured Division is not unrealistic, it’s not a huge force size that only exists in peoples dreams.
We could never fully man it, or equip it or have enough ammo, we need to get things right before we expand
I mean we literally could. This isn’t a conversation about expanding (which shows your tenious grasp on the situation) this is about halting a CUT.
oh my tenious grasp interesting use of words
So now you’re not even trying to discuss, got it.
Well how can you discuss a back handed insult, but back to the point in hand. Numbers alone will not fix a deeper problem, ie retention/manning if you up tank numbers you will have up other arm’s numbers. With our tiny army we struggle to fill it as it is. And if do build up the numbers where do put them, new barracks, etc.
Sadly its been left too long to be fixed in any real time, and the cost would be way more than 2.5% GDP
No, it’s not a back handed insult, it’s just a statment of fact. If you’re worried about tone maybe consider that yourself before saying things like:
As for the rest, I’ve already addressed these points so we’re arguing in circles but just for clarity:
“You have to up other arms numbers.”
No, you don’t actually. You’d achieve a triangular division by splitting DSRB, one of the three Cavalry Regiments stays in Ajax, one becomes Challenger 3, one goes either to 1 UK Div or becomes a divisional reserve.
1 DSRB already has a REME formation, so no need to grow that, the REME formation goes with 1 Armoured Infantry while the Artillery reverts to 1 Artillery Brigade (an administrative formation that detaches it’s artillery to support the three fighting brigades).
QOGLR detaches from 101 Log brigade to become the 1 AI brigade RLC regiment (or if the orbat really doesn’t allow it, one of the regiments from 104 Log reroll)
One of the three Infantry Battalions in 20 Armoured Infantry X moves across to 1, and 1 of the 6(!) infantry battalions in 4 Light Brigade, moves across to 1 Armoured Infantry Brigade, creating; 3 Armoured Infantry Brigades each of 1 Ajax Regiment, 1 Challenger Regiment, and 2 Infantry Battalions.
No uplift in supporting arms required, just a bigger buy of Challenger 3 and Boxer. No increase in headcount required (But even if we did require an uplift in headcount, there’s plenty of space across the army estate, the thing about reducing from 100,000 troops to 70,000 is we have lots of empty room atm).
You seem to think a single division is the “best effort” of the old BAOR, when as I already pointed out the BAOR had 3 Armoured Divisions, and an Infantry Division, plus multiple independent Infantry Brigades back in the UK. The army now is smaller, but that single deployable armoured division now represents a best effort. You’d grasp this if you didn’t think that orbars where just for “puffed up people” and actually bothered to look at the sturcture of the Army between the 1980’s and now.
umm, I see, so there would be enough support arms to make a full Division. All you need is more tanks and Boxers, Arty would be an issue as the amount of AS90 we have left will not cover it, yes you can use light gun but its an issue of range and time in and out of action and mobility ie off road.
A light gun Regt is not any good for an armoured BGD.
Yes you can move ever thing about to on paper fill it and make a Div i’d be very interested to see it at full manned.
you have your view i have mine , i have to operate in under manned, under equpt units, run on a shoe string, because some up top said an orbat is full. And then lower officers agreed even when they knew it was not.
I agree you could make 1 Div. Just not sure it would be a fully armoured Div.
AS90 is on the way out entirely, we’ve donated most of them to Ukraine, they’re being replaced by Boxer with 155 modules, which hopefully will replace a lot of the light gun regiments too (Looking at you 7LBCT).
As it stand 1 DSR has 4 Regular Artillery Regiments on AS90/Archer/MLRS/Boxer 155 and 2 Reserve Regiments, that should enable 3 Brigade Fires Regiments and a Divisional Fires Regiment, or if that doesn’t work, with 3 CMDO no longer being a fighting formation, withdraw 29 and place it as the third brigade fires with 2 Divisional fires regiments.
There are solutions without increasing headcount. Ultimately the issue is whether treasury would be willing to fund the increased Boxer and Challenger buy. The Answer for now is “no,” so instead of a armoured division we have a really fudged formation. I’m more positive than most on the Future Soldier idea, but even I will point out that two armoured brigades really don’t work. The Rule of 3 is a thing for a reason.
Archer regt is under gunned only has 2 Btys not 3, RCH155 will be great but its 2/3 years away but yes i pray it replaces the light gun in the Reserves. Naot sure 7RHA/29Cdo will give up the light gun though.
Our current MLRS is not up graded as the only upgraded4B1 we gave to Ukraine. And yes the rest will be up graded to A2 in the USA, not sure when that will be completed though.
Yes there are make do and mend short term solutions but as for 3 fully Armoured Bds not for a few years.
I hope we do get 3 fully Armoured Bds its the least the Army should have.
Yes, sadly the our Archer pruchase wasn’t enough to cover the initial donation, and now we’re donating more, the Artillery is in for a few lean years until we get enough RCH’s into inventory, but at least it’s coming.
I think you’re right about 7 Para RHA, and sadly I don’t think the reserves will loose light guns, too much expense there, especially supporting 4X. 29… I really wish FCF would decide what it wants to be. If it’s a SOF raiding force it needs to stop hogging an Artillery Regiment and allow it to enable a fighting formation, but FCF is determined to be neither fish nor fowl at the moment.
Archer is a great system but 14 is just a stop gap and the RCH155 is better. Be interesting to see the number of RCH155 ordered but regardless the Artillery will be short of guns up until 2028/30. Having no future tracked gun is odd, that may come back an bite the Army one day.
And sadly yes the light gun will be very expensive to replace in the reserves but would be money well spent.
It will be entertaining seeing 16 AA Bde (7RHA) and 3 Cdo Bde (29 Regt) getting used to these huge and heavy Boxer SPGs!
Thats if they get them i just do not see the light gun staying on much, it is great for does with light forces but it lacks range etc.
Have wait and see how many are ordered, and what the light gun replacement might be. A lot what ifs,
Some are saying that Boxer RCH-155 is also a LG replacement option. You are right – it will be interesting to see if that is the case, or if they adopt M777.
No idea if it will be, a gun that can be moved by helicopter would still be needed. The M777 would add the range and mean one size of shell for all.
I see it as a massive waste of money,time etc to build a new 105mm gun. for what may be 2 or less Regt’s
The concern is about timeline for Boxer RCH-155 SPG production. At least 60 AS-90s (including about 12 hangar queens) have gone to Ukraine, so probably very few, if any, working AS-90 equipments left with the RA? I foresee a capability gap for tube artillery filled only by 14 Archers and the Light Guns.
The German-developed KNDS Boxer RCH-155 apparently needs further development by UK/Germany. So when will development be done, user trials conducted, Reliability Growth Testing done etc etc? [The Bundeswehr did some sort of testing from Feb 2023, but on a vehicle that needs further development.]
Then who builds it? – the same guys building Boxer APC (and previously announced variants)? Will they build the SPG after those or in parallel. So, when will we field RCH-155? No ISD yet published….. however
On 13 May 24, UK Defence Procurement Minister James Cartlidge said:”that the UK would have a “minimum deployable capability… within this decade”. That’s not too optimistic.
Why do you think we could not man a single armoured division? This conversation is a bit mad! A division is typically 15-20k and we are heading to an army of 73k Regs and 30k Army Reserve.
Did you hear that the army is more than just 3 Div. Other compnents includes 1 Div with 16 AA Bde, 6 Div with its specialist brigades. They all get manned, plus the Trg Org and other random units.
What equipment does not exist for 3 (UK) Div?
You may have a point about limited ammunition stocks.
How many units are at near full in manning levels, we do not have 3 Div’s worth of working kit. ie AS90 we have enough for BGD in Estonia and training, I’m sorry but any one who thinks we can field more a full Div is not really seeing the mess as things are.
And as for Ammo thats always been known we buy as little as we can and C2 ammo is no longer made.
Very few units are at full manning levels, if any. But you will remember ‘Peter robbing Paul’ to bring units up to strength prior to deployment. I was OC 28 Engr Regt Wksp REME in 1990-91 – we had to send a number of our guys ( I think about a dozen) over to 35 RE workshop for the 1st Gulf War. We always do this.
Very true about depletion of AS90 – General Sanders alluded to the risk we are running in gifting kit to UKR withut quickly and fully replacing it with roughly similar capability. We have seemingly gifted 60 AS-90s (including some 12 ‘Christmas Trees’) – but replaced them (and late in the day) by just 14 wheeled Archers (ex-Swedish Army). Boxer RCH-155 SPG will not be fielded for several more years as there is further development to be done and a production contract has seemingly not yet been let.
Ammo. Others who have seen the figures have said that we only have enough ammo for either 2 or 4 weeks use (different estimates at play). Scandalous.
But if the politicos ordered 3 Div to deploy on operations, we both know it would go, and contingency plans would kick in to round out manpower and somehow patch capability gaps in equipment and ammo.
Very True we could if needed make the numbers and kit up by robbing every one else, we are last minute Army
British troops would be deployed on NATO borders & fight all the way across Europe, hence the need for MBTs to be an adequately equipped ally. We don’t sit inside our borders waiting for all our allies to be eliminated before engaging our enemy.
really i did not know that, thank god you told me,
When in a hole, stop digging Martin. But you just can’t help yourself can you? 🤡😂
ha ha, not in a whole, just having fun, and my point stands. 148 C3 Tanks is enough for the Army we have. Just
It is, and isnt.
We require a combat Division, minimum, to declare to NATO as part of the ARRC.
That was mandated in 2010, and hasn’t changed.
That division should have 3 manoeuvre Brigades. Ours has 2, plus DRSB.
So although 2 Regiments can be furnished with 148, its wafer thin when reserves, training pool are included. Not to mention attrition.
We should be aiming for 3, with a reconstituted 3rd Armoured Brigade
i agree but i feel there will be only 148 C3’s, i’m not sure how many used/stored or in service C2 hulls there are in total to be up graded but must be a lot more than 148
Why 148 was picked i do not know, it was not enough for the job but some one some where agreed to it, question is who a minister or an officer?
I’d say a minister on army advice of what minimal capability it would provide.
Graham covered numbers a while ago here. There are others but some beyond help as badly stored.
Bad advise was given, poor advise even. I am right in saying the hulls to be up graded are all out of service ie no active service C2’s are being with drawn to make the 148? or have miss understood the article about hull numbers
We needed 221 tanks in GW1.
No-one is mooting a need for 800 tanks. Who do you think is saying that?
Our island status is irrelevant, as is our lack of Empire – we need to be able to contribute meaningful forces (in all 5 domains) to NATO for the defence of the Euro-Atlantic region. No NATO member just defends itself.
That was then 1991. things change. You have failed to read my other points.
Sorry Martin. I have lost the thread of this. What did I say that you understood to be uniquely about 1991?
God knows i am old,
🙂
Others quote 180 tanks for GW1. I will have to look at the discrepancy. Maybe it is tank variants – AVRE, AVLB, ARRV that acounts for the difference.
“Might it be possible to procure, say, three or four such smaller, less-sophisticated MBTs for the same cost (purchase or lease) as one current/near-future Western design?”
I suppose it could depend on how less sophisticated those 3 or 4 tanks are…but I would say that if electronics are required within them then I’m going to say no it wouldn’t.
It would be inetersting to do some sort of ost analysis but that would depend on what you are proposing from a strategic viewpoint
Are you going down the T34 type scenario where mass (numbers not weight ) will be the deciding factor..in which case manning of and protection of crfews will be paramount so costs will be of similar ammounts.
Or are you suggesting unmaned heavily armoured track man (as opposed to wing man) tanks – in which case they would probably still need to have high spec electronics.
Large nmbers do of course bring their own logistical & maintenance considerations to an increase in those ‘teams’ would be inherent in that strategy.
In the end itwill , as always, all come down to cost – so it will be whatever is cheapest.
Maybe Stalin did have the right idea after all ….
No it could not because our challenger 3 program is costing 5.6 million per vehicle..which is insanely cheap..even a 30 ton wheeled vehicle armed with 120mm cannon would set you back 9 million each…we are getting an MBT for 2 thirds of the price of one of these lighter vehicles.
👍
Just to be clear I was quoting the orignal authors question in my opening statement and then expanding on that with some additional thoughts –
I had also decided it was not a viable option I was just postulating further.
Indeed, it was not aimed at your comment but the argument from the author that we can somehow get 3 times the number of lighter armoured vehicles over challenger 3.
👍
Chally 3 gives us a stop-gap measure. It will provide tanks to do peace-keeping and small foreign conflicts in the short-medium term. Why are we worrying about this?
Our expertise should be, as an island nation, in protecting the seas & the air. We should perhaps avoid getting drawn into large scale land wars especially in Europe (for a change). There are other countries who are better placed to do that. The UK might be better placed clearing the sea lanes and eliminating threats from the air.
That is not to say that we should ignore the advances in tech as they appear and perhaps look to something later however I think we have greater priorities.
Cool, then time to abandon a leading role in NATO, and watch the alliance fracture even more.
I think that might be a little negative. Those Countries on mainland Europe know they need armour and lots of it. That should be their focus. We don’t give them a hard time if they are not providing enough ships. Our assets will help them deter and if necessary defeat an enemy. They will know that. Having a strong RN and a strong RAF will ensure a leading role in NATO. We are not disbanding the Army we are just running with the kit we have planned for the time being. I suspect ground warfare will evolve a great deal over the next decade. Let’s be in at the start of that.
Mark B, totally agree, the main priority of the UK should be sea and air; that should include GBADUK. A mobile hard hitting army to reinforce Norway-Sweden. I do think our NATO allies would thank us for it especially Norway and the US. However it is the most exspensive part of military expenditure. For £1 billion you could get 100 MBTs, 10 F35s, 1 DDG or half a SSN.
This mobile hard hitting army should be based around the Boxer with modules to include the 155mm RCH, 105mm direct fire, 35mm SkyRanger/SkyKnight, Brimestone etc. We should have the ships to transport three such battlegroups with their air support in a single lift. With three battlegroups forward deployed, three at 72 hours and a further 3 at 10 days with three on stand down and three on work up. That gives a total of 15 battlegroups each of about 800 troops. This should be an effective force to assist Norway and Sweden if need be. Thats about 12,000 troops based on Boxer that can be used either to reinforce Norway or Sweden and be deployed world wide if need be.
The 148 Ch3s are still not enough, we do need another 56 CH3s giving 168 front line Ch3s and 36 in reserve or the workshop. These three armoured regiments combined with armoured infantry (Ajax), 2 battalions per tank regt, tracked artillery of 2 regt of tracked 155mm, 1 regt of M270, 1 regt of Sky Sabre etc would be the main contribution to mainland Europe. If we could have this formation combined with say two such formations from the US into a standing NATO strategic reserve force of about 9 regt of tanks each with 56 MBTs, 18 battalions of armoured infantry about 700 men per battalion, 6 regt of 155mm artillery, 3 regt of M270s and 3 regt of theatre air defence plus all the other bits and pieces. This would mean a British contribution to mainland Europe of about 15-17,000 troops and a US contribution of 30-34,000 troops. Which I think Trump might be ok with.
By forming the Army in this way it shows what is needed for the Navy, 3 LHDs like HMAS Canberra, 3 extra T26s and either 6 extra T31s or T32s. These extra frigates are the close escorts for the LHDs. These groups could also be used in convoy escort or ASW hunter groups. The CSGs would act as distant cover. Just to think about, the French have 3 LHDs based in Toulon, did anyone ask the question why. The French have a land border in Europe, we the UK are an Island, we need to transport our army by sea to where it is needed yet we do not have any capability to land a formation as a single unit.
I did work out that for GBAD of the Uk we would need 6 systems of SAMP/T and 11 systems of Sky Sabre.
You can’t have armoured Infantry on Ajax.
True its the Ajax family so It would be Ares.
Even then, Ares as it stands only carries 4 dismounts, and given that it has the same armament as Boxer I don’t see the swap really making sense.
I’m in both camps. I agree on the RN, RAF first doctrine, but I’d still want at least 1 Armoured Division to deploy to help NATO.
For a nation of our size it should be easily achievable. As a leading European NATO power we should.
Totally agree. 1 Armoured Division is the minimum requirement to maintain our place in NATO but as many have said on here reinstated with 3 Regt’s of MBTs.
Beyond that and we must focus on our maritime and airborne capabilities for enhancement.
I’m really talking from the perspective of priorities and a sense that ground warfare is evolving at the moment so we need to decide what’s next, do some R&D and see where that takes us. Chally 3 is after all only a short term fix isn’t it.
Is it, dunno?!
I think Labour will prioritise the army in the SDSR so would not surprise me to have the 3 Regs retained.
I’m hoping for a 2nd armoured division personally…..😃
Now now, don’t be greedy!🤪
Why is it a short term fix? It is on a proven hull with a brand new turret on par with the Leo A8 and the latest M1! The ‘new’ European collaboration is miles off and knowing that the German & French idea of tank warfare are a long way apart it probably won’t even see the light of day.
As Jonathan has said it’s bonkers not to make as many CR3s as we can at this price!
It is a short term fix because like or not tech is changing & evolving (as we can see in Ukraine) and we have a long way to go before it is mature. Seriously, how long will it be before the C3 defences are breached plus probably the M1 and others.
This is not about Tanks specifically. It is about what we definately need and what we might need and where our priorities should lie. If we have enough money to do everything then fine but I think we all know there will be no blank cheques written anytime soon..
Since when did we do peace-keeping with tanks? There are no Challys in UNFICYP!
You suggest that as an Island nation we should not bother having much of an army etc etc. Did you not hear of WW1, WW2, Korean War, Suez, two Gulf Wars, Afghanistan……our army has just always been deployed by politicians on expeditionary wars.
You think we should avoid being drawn in to large land wars in Europe? We’d better leave NATO then. We are a founder (and still a key) member of this alliance to defend the Euro-Atlantic region.
Yes Graham I’ve heard of all of those and more. Frankly WW1 and 2 were about survival and those after have been about trying to put out fires and get peace around the world. Some of them might have been badly executed or misguided but that is what we are about nowadays. The COLD war (which you are more than familiar with) was probably the largest peace keeping exercise ever known – and it worked – and it involved tanks.
I know you lived and breathed tanks. I know you are a great supporter of tanks.That is fine. Russia had a view that tanks were their greatest asset. Even they now know they were wrong in the 2020s. Modern tech is evolving at an alarming rate and there will be new weapons emerging in months not decades. Better to stick with C3 for the time being and then as things evolve decide what can defeat the evolving threats or if tanks are dead and we need to dream up something to replace it.
Thanks Mark. I am a supporter of tanks because they are essential to our army to prosecute warfighting against a peer or near peer opponent equipped with tanks, and they have utility in operations other than war, as discussed. Those who consider tanks to be obsolete are wrong – if they were right then alternatives would be found to do what tanks do, and most, if not all, tank-operating nations would be rapidly phasing them out, but instead they are upgrading and/or replacing their tank fleets.
Russia has always thought that artillery (rather than tanks) was their greatest asset, and look at the damage they have caused in Ukraine with artillery. They have not used their tanks at all well in Ukraine – I have been astonished at how ineptly they have handled their tanks and, in fact, all of their armoured forces. Many, unwisely, are taking all of their lessons about the tank from how Russia has used them.
I am glad you say we should stick with CR3 for the time being, particularly as an £800m contract has been let and prototypes built! We do need many more than 148 tanks. We do need to keep CR3 upgraded when in service, particularly in terms of making survivability improvements. We always used to do regular major upgrades but that seemed to end following the Chieftain era.
Does anyone who is serious about this subject really think the tank is dead because the Russians handle their tanks so dreadfully and because a new type of anti-tank weapon (attack drones) exists? Who then is taking tanks out of their inventory…only Belgium and that was due to budgetary pressure.
Maybe we won’t have a conventional tank after CR3 – but we will have a highly mobile, highly survivable, direct fire weapon system in the combined arms battle. Let’s just call it a future tank!
It should be less heavy (Jack Watling of RUSI postulates 54t as the ideal weight) than current MBTs, better protected against top attack, have a reduced logistic and engineering support footprint, be more numerous than a 148-fleet, and to be cheaper than today’s tanks. Very hard to achieve all of that but we should try. Pre-Concept work is ongoing for ‘CR4’ and the Concept phase proper should start in the next 5-6 years at latest.
Ajax is now delivering 42t without any changes to the drivetrain & can go above with changes there’s a 1000hp MTU already an unmanned turret from Rheinmettall via RBSL or KNDS from WFEL an armoured crew capsule at the rear with a see through armour system.
Job done
While I share a lot of the worries voiced, the solutions seem to be shortsighted, wishful thinking and even dangerous.
Buying 2 smaller tanks for the price of one is very likely impossible, let alone 3 or 4.
Smaller, less armour, etc. Yes! But it will require a lot of cutting edge tech also, which will up the price. The military industriel complex will assure a steady rise in costs all in itself also.
A man in the loop isn’t needed because of ‘western sensibilities’ alone, but also because of the very real problems with communications, hacking and yes..A.I. going bonkers.
A.I. is both the biggest promise AND the biggest threat. Arguably on par with nuclear weapons
Besides, nothing is or will for a long time to come match the flexibility when dealing with the unexpected of a human brain
So..I think somewhat lighter tanks, with armour all around, remote turrets, active protection and sophisticated ‘ ciws’, is what we need.
With the mentioned extra’s they won’t be that much smaller and certainly not a lot cheaper. If at all.
What this fails to recognise is just how cheap we are getting challenger 3 for the price we could not get even a lighter vehicle….we are paying 5.6million pounds per challenger three, that is insanely cheap and there is no way on earth we could ever get any armoured fighting vehicle for cheaper..if you consider a centurio 2, wheeled tank destroyer…120gun, armoured to manage IFV level threats ( 40mm anti tank) weight just under 80 tons..costs about 9 million….
If we did go for a lighter vehicle than challenge 3 we would need to almost double the budget…
The reality is 5.6 million per tank is so insanely cheap it’s ridiculous not to build every challenger 3 we can from the hulls we have available…as noted replacing it with any other modern MBT in the future would cost 20million a pop……
Its also worth noting the author was suggesting previously we consider leopard 2 buy..which would cost us 20million a pop.
Amen somebody talking sense👌
Question, how much does a CV90-120 or a kf51 Panther cost in comparison to a Challenger 3???
Good question, the realistic answer is I don’t think anyone knows, yet.
Well RM are quoting 15million dollars per kf51…so challenging 3 is half the price.
I mean what they quote, and what they end up going fir are very different things. But yes, certainly goingbtk cost more than cr3.
Yes you can probably add a good few percent onto each of those…
Well a CV90 as of the last contract was around 9 million dollars each or 6.9 million pounds…so CV90-120 will be north of that figure by a far margin. The last time I looked rheinmetal were quoting costs of 15 million dollars so 11.6 million pounds for a kf51 so we are getting 2 Challenger 3s for each kF51..and I suspect close to 1.5 for every CV90-120.
when I said challenger three is cheaper than anything we could buy…we are paying 7.1 million pounds for each new wheeled APC..it’s beyond a bargain.
I made Boxer about £5.35m a copy. As you know a number of different variant types, but that is the average unit price.
£2.8Bn for the first 523.
It was originally quoted at £2.3bn – no idea why the price went up in the few weeks before Contract Award!
That’s interesting as generally they seem to be an about 9 million per unit as an average…the Australians are paying £12.5 million each but I think that included a better support package…I was reading an article from aus which basically said the UK contract was essentially BS cut to the bone and it would infact cost the UK closer to the Aus contract in the end.
Jonathan, are you sure that a Boxer APC retails at £9m each?! I thought our unit price (£5.35m for Tr1) was very high as it was. Other APCs are much cheaper.
The Australians must be getting an amazing (or stupidly over-priced) support package. Interesting that their purchase includes 211 Boxer recce variants.
The UK contracts (for buying 523 as Tranche 1 then 100 Tranche 2) will be firm price – it can’t go up. But a seperate follow-on contract for support++ could always be signed.
Generally, across the world, companies massively over-charge for support packages.
Hi graham…this is an interesting little article around boxer price variation
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/land-amphibious/5108-two-for-the-price-of-one-why-is-australia-being-charged-double-for-boxer-mivs
Thanks. Good article but a few years old now. Interesting that Oz is buying a version of Boxer with a 30mm cannon in a turret. The key delta between the UK and the Oz deal is their inclusion of lifetime support costs, as the article says. There was a view years ago that our procurements should include whole life costs (WLC) but it never happened.
If it’s so cheap per tank, why isn’t the MOD looking at taking advantage of this now and get another batch upgraded if it’s really looking like more are actually needed going by some of the comments here?
Because government spending is bonkers..it never looks at the most efficient and cost effective purchase..just what it can afford at the time for the allocation given..even if that means it may waste money later.. the challenge three contract has been signed and agreed 800 million for 148 challenger 3s… that’s just over 5 million per vehicle…if we had purchased say Abrams or leopard that contract would have cost 2920 million…the cost of converting the extra 70 odd challenger 2s so we could keep 3 regiments would be about 380 million..or the cost of about 38 boxer APCs.
so the decision not to convert all 220 challengers is financially idiotic..especially if you consider that if we ever needed to go back to 3 regiments we would have to buy about 70 Abrams or leopards at around 1400 million as well as suffer the costs an inefficient nightmare of running two fleets of MBTs.
Thanks Jonathan, I haven’t had time to fully read everyone’s comments here, just bits. I wanted to ask about the APS kits, is it Trophy? Aren’t they only ordering 60 odd? What happens if tanks are lost in battle, these are also? Can’t imagine they can be resupplied JIT? Shouldn’t they be ordering the full 148 of these too whatever they cost? And let hope the storage facilities don’t have any leaky roofs.
Unfortunately it seems there is more intelligence on here than in Whitehall. I think that Ben Wallace got out when he did probably indicates his dissatisfaction with what was planned not just on this issue but across the board.
Tanks are like condoms, you’d rather have them and not need them, than need them and not have them
However we have needed our tanks many, many times in the last 30-35 years.
The polish government don’t seem to think Tanks are done 🤔
They have good reason having tank terrain land border with the bear.
The same terrain we’ll be fighting on if a war breaks out…
Imagine for a moment as there was boasting from tusk of polish GDPR per capita greater than uk. Fact or fiction not arguing that point. But spend money where it matters so poles its tanks. Uk can not be jack of all trades with middle western economy.
Indeed, which is why Poland has 3 Armoured Divisions, while the UK should have 1.
Or put another way, Poland has 10 Armoured Brigades, we should be aiming for 3.
Every NATO member needs armour that they can deploy. The NATO land area of responsibility is Europe.
Even Canada with its slender defence budget has tanks and would send over their tanks if a European NATO country was invaded.
Neither does anyone else in the world ….except Belgium.
The tank was invented to break through the defensive lines that developed on the western front in WW1. Eventually, at Amiens in 1918, tanks broke the deadlock decisively.
Despite relatively poor performance by tanks in the Spanish civil war, the German army embraced a”combined arms operation”, with fast moving formations of mainly light tanks with infantry, SPG and air support. Most of Germany’s blitzkrieg success was achieved with light tanks. Russia too had settled on a doctrine of mobile warfare but crucially without the combined arms tactics used by Germany. All-tank formations proved ineffective. Russia adopted a combined arms doctrine by late 1942 with both sides operating in similar fashion. As Germany was forced on to the defensive, it developed heavier and better armed tanks, supplementing these with tank destroyer adaptations of earlier lighter tanks.
Western tanks were generally poor, under armed and under armoured. Only in 1945 did Britain and the USA field competitive new designs.
Post war, German use of super heavy tanks was copied by Britain, USA andUSSR alongside larger numbers of medium tanks. By the 1960s the MBT took over both roles in these armies and that has continued to this day.
The question now is what exactly do we want tanks to do? If we want them primarily for defense, then maybe a modern version of the Swedish S tank would be sufficient: low profile, lower weight and capable, because of the lack of turret, of carrying cage armour protection against drone/ missile top attack.
The current trend is for MBTs to have ever larger guns and ever more effective armour plus APS. Weights are rising to @ 80 tons. This seems to be a developmental dead end, driven not only by technological improvement but an aversion to casualties. That aversion has led the British army to replace lightweight reconnaissance vehicles with the 40 ton Ajax.
It seems to me that the only real need for heavy MBTs is their original WW1 purpose- breaking through heavily defended entrenchments. For manouevre warfare, something much more mobile is required- a light- ish platform, possibly wheeled, armed with a dual purpose cannon and/or missiles.
As the article points out, the high cost of modern MBTs inevitably means smaller numbers. But Ajax itself costs@ £9m each and Britain is buying 589 of them. The Ascod based Booker costs @ $14m. So whatever replaces or supplements MBTs must be significantly cheaper than all of these if larger numbers are wanted.
Yes but for the British army the next generation MBT is not costing anything like this we are getting them for 5.6 million each..that’s so profoundly cheap..HMG should be ordering as many as we can get with the hulls available…
It also makes you think how much we could get a new generation warrior for using the existing hulls…far far cheaper than boxer or any other new vehicles.
The Warrior upgrade (WCSP) would have been very good value.
Tanks are inherently offensive warfare platforms, although they can be used in mobile defence and that was deemed to be their forte in allied use in the Cold War in Germany.
We once had Infantry tanks or ‘I’ tanks, heavy well armed but slow tanks designed to accompany the infantry who were often dismounted and faster lighter cruiser tanks that would operate independently in an aggresive way. We abandoned that philosophy with the creation of the world’s first MBT, the Centurion. Our MBTs operate in both the offence and the defence – always have done.
Not sure why you are talking about Ajax in a comment about tanks!
The only modern MBT that matches the requirements given is the Japanese Type 10. It’s 40t in light, 44t standard & 48t heavy configuration. It does need APS & an anti-drone RWS fitted though. The different weights come via removing or adding modular armour. It can do 70+ km/h both forward & backwards.
The new prototype Leopard 2 with auto loader, APS & RWS comes in slightly under 60t with a 120mm gun. Starting to head in the right direction.
If you can’t move & you are found, you won’t last long. Put more thought on how not to get hit, rather than how to survive getting hit. The navy gave up on battleships a long time ago.
For a non-uk option I fully agree. It could with the current Japanese cooperation & relaxation on exports be a basis of a UK licence build.
Something that we could actually deploy & potentially falls into the composite rubber track bracket. Another option is a heavily modified Ajax. We no longer have large forward deployed forces. The NATO area of operations has massively increased with the membership of Sweden & Finland. We need to start thinking about what’s right for UK plc & it’s contribution.
However, for me this doesn’t completely rule out heavy, but what we have of that needs forward deploying we could even slightly increase CR3 numbers by adopting 2 x 58 regiment Brigades.
We then need to think about reinforcing anywhere along the NATO border, but more likely in the North. We’ve Boxer add some Type-10 or Ajax mod with rubber tracks.
To say we’re out of the tank game is a load of rubbish. Some of the most important elements are optics, Comms, electronic systems – we have plenty of choice. We also have Horstman, David Brown Santasalo as well as Magtec & others in the hybrid sector.
In reality almost every NATO member barring the French use or will be using a German gun. The next gen will likely be French or German 130 or 140mm gun. Most modern western tanks have an MTU or design derived from the MTU in Leo 2. Rolls-royce is a UK firm as with Boxer there’s a facility near Gatwick to assemble engines.
Beyond that we have the industry to deliver something that is becoming closer to a medium vehicle (which we have just spent a fortune on). Even if the end result looks nothing like Ajax the electronics & likely future upgrades can be applied to a UK vehicle.
I would suggest Ajax is not suitable for a mbt design. If you were desperate, you could throw on a 105mm turret. But it is already well past what it was originally designed for (ASCOD). Type 10 was designed to be a mbt from the start (clean sheet design). Designs such as Lynx & Redback would be a better starting point than Ajax, if you want a conversion (note: Redback is more of a K9 downgrade than an K21 upgrade).
There is nothing out there that can’t be handled by a 120mm. If you are close enough,105mm is still very effective. 130mm & 140mm just add unneeded weight (& less ammo). Develop them, sure (if you have the spare cash). But fielding them is a waste of resources atm. Use a Javelin or Spike if the need arises. If Ukraine finds western heavy mbt’s to be too heavy for Eastern Ukraine, Russia will be the same.
If we wanted an effective tank that is much lighter than the Challenger series, we should look at the Type 10 and draw some conclusions.
I really don’t understand the wisdom of heavily modifying a recce vehicle.
Because said Recce vehicle is not that far away from the requirement & has an active production line in the UK. Japan has only even just recently talked about export & AFAIK it’s unlikely whole systems or supposedly super secret nano-steel will be the first thing they export. I like the idea of the Type 10 – but also I see the merit in the Merkava design in using vehicle elements such as engine transmission as protection as well as passive armour. This would be even more beneficial in a weight constricted design & Ajax would already be in that configuration. I’m unsure about vehicle dynamics as supposedly Merkava has some limitations.
GDUK with an inexperienced workforce took the ASCOD2 Ulan/Pizarro IFV, radically re-designed it, then sourced poorly made misaligned hulls from GD Spain and found they had a vehicle with significant noise and vibration issues – and had to be fixed, but it was not fixed by solving the problem at source (ie by demanding better hulls) but on mitigating the effects of noise and vibration by fitting better seats and headphones.
The programme missed its planned ISD of 2017 by many years – I don’t think it has even completed its Reliability Growth Trials yet. That is really not a good basis on which to build an excellent medium-weight MBT.
A bidding competition between Merkava, Type 10 and Panther KF51 would be a good place to start. Perhaps GDUK (or RBSL) could build the winning entry under licence. For the avoidance of doubt this suggestion is not ‘instead of CR3’ but ‘after CR3.’ But something newer and better may come along in the interim.
Japan is interesting example island nation. they are cutting down to 300 tanks from a 1000+ as googled please correct me if I am wrong.
That seems to be the plan. They are ordering more Type 10 & reducing the numbers of existing Type 90, which are restricted to the big island near Russia. Not sure where your figure of 1000+ comes from, as there is only something like 340 Type 90 tanks. Perhaps pre the T90? I believe the current combined total is more like 540, destined to go to 300. There is also the wheeled Type 16 with a 105mm gun, but it’s more a fire support & assault gun type vehicle, rather than a tank.
The Type 10 wouldn’t work for the UK. This is due to the internal size being built around the Japanese male average demographic. You would have to make the internal volume bigger to allow a UK average male to operate inside the vehicle.
I never seen that stated & potentially stems from a stereo-typical point of view. It maybe the case but I’d like to see the evidence.
It is a real consideration. Average male height in Japan is around 2” shorter than the average in much of Europe. In general, it’s not too much of a problem, unless you are talking restricted spaces, like tanks & submarines. South Korea averages 1” shorter than Europe. North Korea is way below South Korea (nutrition does count – it’s not just genetics).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_country
It’s not the Type 10 as an example of what UK should buy. It’s an example of what’s possible. It’s a clean sheet mbt design by a major modern industrial nation, concentrating on weight reduction, without throwing the baby out with the bath water. If Japan can do it, why can’t any of the NATO nations?
Ok, that makes much more sense. A clean sheet design to meet 55t max weight including any additional appliqué armour I think is doable. Especially if you reduce the crew size to 3 and include an autoloader.
The French LeClerc was supposed to be around 50 to 55t. Where’s its armour is supposed to protect the crew from 125mm armour piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) across the frontal 60 degree arc. But will only stop 30mm APFSDS along the sides and rear.
The UAE have used the tank operationally in Yemen, where it performed ok. However, Yemen wanted more armour fitted, so France developed an appliqué ceramic armour. That can be fitted over the extant armour. This increases the weight to just under 60t.
A lighter tank will not have the same hit durability as say a Chally 2/3. There’s no getting away from what thick multilayered composite (Chobham) passive armour can give you, as it allows multiple hits in the same area.
The only way you can get to that target weight is by significantly reducing the mass of passive armour. Then replacing the mass with explosive reactive armour (ERA) to give you similar protection. But with Western tanks main guns having a MoA of <1.5 degrees at 1500m. There’s a good chance that a shot could be placed in to a gap from an initiated ERA cell.
So if you wanted a much lighter tank, there are some innate compromises that you can’t escape from. A 3 man crew with an autoloader, will save mass, due to the smaller volume of armour protection required. But it does mean the remaining crew of 3 will have to work harder and longer to maintain the vehicle. Who now makes the brews?
To have comparable crew protection with a manned turret you will need ERA. Which does not allow the tank to have persistence or durability in a contact. It also means that the tank presents a risk to life for nearby supporting infantry. The ERA metal sandwich will split apart and be thrown in a cone tangentially to the vehicle. Hence why you don’t see many Russian infantry operating near to their tanks.
For an armoured citidel with an unmanned turret. Situational awareness can only be achieved using digital optics. If these are knocked out or too badly damaged, the tank is effectively mission killed. As there’s no simple way of including a manual backup. To protect the tank and its relatively fragile optics better, you will require an active protection system that uses either kinetic or preferably explosive effectors to defeat threats with a stand-off distance. Before the threat can be in range to damage the vehicle through fragmentary effects. If tanks with unmanned turrets become the next big thing. Expect to see sharpshooters and snipers using more anti-material rifles to take out the optics.
The Type 10 looks impressive on paper, but only has 22 rounds. The armour is better than I would have expected for such a light tank. We should at least evaluate it for future use.
It’s a non-starter arguing that we don’t need tanks because we don’t have land borders. Most places we do expect to fight, alongside allies, DO have land borders!
Drone threats can be minimised by us having an overmatch of them so we deal with enemy drones/drone operators before they get to us. Plus a 360 degree drone intercepting weapons defence.
But if we keep cutting every arm of the forces we will never have enough when we need them, inviting deafeat, failing our allies, emboldening our enemies.
We will know whats needed when the government wakes up to what is important.
Finally a text that asks the right questions.
Should the UK be looking at an M10 Booker sized tank next?
Half the cost of a Leopard 2A8.
Could even use the Ajax chassis.
M10 is based off the Ajax chassis.
Even better.
We’ll soon know, if we don’t already, how much more useful a 120mm+ gun is over a 105mm for most tasks.
For heavy tank killing tasks, add Brimstone.
I mean, the 105mm isn’t exactly new, it was used on Stryker MGS, M60 Patton, Centauro B1, even M1 Abrams and Leopard 1. So I don’t think there’ll be any huge revelations about it’s utility.
Yes, I know, I’m wondering just how much more useful the Ukrainians are finding the 120mm over the 105mm, especially given the lack of tank on tank action.
Well the Italians have upgunned the Centauro from a 105 to 120mm gun.,,and NATO moved specificity from the 105mm purposefully.
The Booker’s M68 is based on the original ROF L7. The NATO standard 120 tank round offer some significant advantages over the 105.
Thee first is that many Western companies have developed rounds for the 120, whereas there are only a few still producing 105 tank rounds. Because of this the high explosive shell now is programable, giving the shell more targets it can be used on.
The 120 HE shell contains more explosive than the smaller 105. Giving it a bigger kill radius.
Personally I’d say the Ukrainians would prefer just 120 guns/ammo. But given the current situation, they’d probably take anything.
What I got out of this was that the USMC was proven right when they got rid of their tanks back in 2020
Marines -army totally different roles!
True. But I remember when the USMC got rid of their M1s and the world cried fowl. Now it looks like their force design changes are warrented.
Remember the USMC are looking at fighting on small islands and if they need tanks they have the US Army with one of the biggest tank fleets in the world to back them up. Their choices should not reflect best practice for anyone else.
Indeed the main focus of the USMC is really the pacific and conflict in that theatre…as well as amphibious operations elsewhere…if you consider the USMC has 85,000 troops based in the pacific and 1500 based in Europe and Africa.
It’s not as simple as that. The Commandant General stated that the USMC needed to refocus to the Pacific. Where fortified Islands and Atolls would be their targets. However, because these bases would be protected by a plethora of air defences and especially anti-ship missiles. Getting a slow moving amphibs to the shore would be very hazardous. So he decided that smaller and lighter forces would be better, as they could use a more dispersed and a more rapid means to attack and capture a beach head. The USMC Abrams haven’t been scrapped, they’ve just been put into storage.
He also stated that the US Army would then support USMC in attacking heavily fortified beach heads, with their more up to date Abrams. Which came out of the blue for the Army.
As someone who is closely tied to this subject due to my job, I can assure you the USMC has no tanks in its inventory. The last of them left the supply list two years ago.
Which may be the case. But I drove past them last year whilst on a visit to the States.
Well that was a quick tour of the broken thinking on Ukraine. Let’s look at the point.
1: We don’t need tanks as they are obsolete. We’ll ask Ukraine if they’d like more tanks. The simple fact is the reason the 2023 Summer by Ukraine offensive failed was a lack of tanks, support tanks (mine clearance, bridging etc). The tank was the only vehicle that could operate in the mined, cleared artillery kill zones.
2: It’s the Drones you know. Well yes if you have T72/T62 that cook off because a hit on the turret blows it off. However how many actual western tanks have been taken out by drones, the number is limited. Fit anti drone weapon intergrate with your anti missile system and it protects not just the tank but all vehicles in the area.
3: Bridging, they are just too heavy. Again it’s why nato and mostly American armoured formations are heavy on engineering equipment. Your enemy is not leaving many bridges up anyway. Same for boggy ground, the nato doctrine is to pick where you breakthrough and what ground you fight on. Any vehicle will sink in to a bog whatever its weight unless you buy light low pressure vehicles like Viking/Bronco.
4: They are too expensive. Well to get the same effect your buying 2 to 3 times the number of your lighter tanks anyway. Time you throw in all the complicated defensive aids to compensate for lack of armour your price is more expensive. Steel is cheap, complicated system are not just ask the Navy.
5: We can do it with a few missiles. Again massively expensive. To have enough and keep them up to date is going to cost you more than a tank. Tank rounds are relatively cheap. Second to get those missiles near an enemy tank your going to need an armoured vehicle to get you there with all the expensive protection that you tank needs. The fact the British Army are relying on blokes piping out of a Warrior or an Ajax variant whilst the Russians rain down iron rain from their extensive artillery is a suicide mission. Spending billions whilst then spending millions on setting up contingency manufacturing facilities to meet your needs. It’s quite instructive how quickly the west has been able to step up 155mm shell production. You know the HMT will never buy enough missiles to sit on the shelf with an expiry date.
6: Loyal wingman. Again in a heavily degraded electronic environment you are not reliably controlling tanks from a container in Tidworth nor from another tank. Western Politicians & Public demand we have people in the kill chain, unless you want to create at great expense some very high tech solution a man looking either out the top or through a optic sight we have no other option.
Are MBT the answer on their own. NO. But we’ve known that since WWII, it’s why we have combined arms organisations. The problem is you blame the MBT for the failings in logistics (not enough HET’s for strategic movement), anti drone, artillery, engineering for mine clearance, bridging etc. The fact is firing million pound missiles to take out Taliban strong holds because we didn’t take tanks is a classic example. Doing the same at thousands of cheap Russian T72/64’s is the same problem.
What we require as per our Nato commitments is a 3 Brigade armoured Division. That’s 3 x 60 tanks plus training etc tanks. So 225/250 is about right. Quite simply we are not doing this on the cheap, secondly we need to get a light refurb so that reserve elements have replacement tanks & equipment. The lesson learned from Ukraine is you burn through equipment fast, missiles cost money, & even a 70yr old FV432 is better than shanks pony. The fact is Ukraine/Russia war has now descended to WWI trench warfare because one side doesn’t have enough tanks and the other has crap ones.
Been reading the comments on here , the pros and cons have been mooted again and again over the last 100 years.. like carriers (or battleships) ..all out of date until they are needed . In Ukraine it’s bad training at every level that has led to the tank loses. I’d rather have an expensive tank watching my back or a carrier providing air over at sea ..just ask my uncle who was in the Falklands if he’d liked to have more Carrier cover when he was fending off sky hawks with a gpmg tied to railings on his explosive Laden RFA ..so many arm chair Generals who play too much world of tanks ..go ask some tankers who have seen combat ..they’ll know what’s what.
Difficult to protect a tank in the age of drone warfare. When you can just fly around to the rear of the tank or top of the tank with a $5000 drone and precisely hit the weakest areas with modest shaped charges that would cripple most multi million dollar tanks. Drone operator safely tucked away several kilometres away.
There needs to be more anti drone technology developed, otherwise you are resigned the fact you are going to lose a lot of expensive tanks in a modern conflict. I don’t think tanks are finished but there is a certain lag between the vulnerability now and eventually effectively protecting armoured vehicles from this threat.
Yes but small slow drones are not something that is going to be that difficult to defend against..the issue is they are new and air defence is presently only really optimised for larger faster targets…so it’s not going to be that much of a technical challenge to put anti light drone defences on armour…the big challenge will be that small light drones are also a massive threat to infantry…something that can sneak a small fragmentation charge right next to you through cover is a nightmare..so infantry will also need anti drone equipment…and for infantry every pound of weight matters.
I think it is dangerous to draw too heavily on the Ukraine conflict to draw wider lessons. For example if this was a NATO vs Russia conflict, the Alliance would have likely gained air superiority fairly quickly. This would have reduced the hostile drone and air opposition. This would have enabled manoeuvre and made for faster advance reducing the effect of heavily prepared defences including mines. Also NATO would have better armoured offerings with ECM and APS. So in other words it would be a very different conflict. I suspect we will see sophisticated Western tanks with autonomous drone vehicles. Rather like we are seeing fighters with loyal wingmen etc.
The issue is that modern air defence systems are not optimised against small slow drones…they are either filtered out of the picture or blend into ground clutter. So as you say you need armour that is equipped to manage small slow drones.
There are birds larger than some of these drones. You can also fly a drone well below tree (& house) height, making early detection difficult. Not all drones are trying to directly kill you. The artillery shell that comes after may well do so.
Indeed, it needs a different approach to dealing with them…standard air superiority does nothing.. especially when they are launched at infantry against other infantry.
Check out the DefendTex D40. It’s the size of a pigeon.
Doing away with the MBT as a whole? Unlikely.
Improve? Yes for sure
I seem to remember we had the scorpion light tank in the 1970,s very fast and manoeuvrable . Could an updated and modernised design based on this be the answer .
CVRT were lightly armoured recce and specialist vehs,there is a version with a 90mmm gun but the last thing those crews wanted to do was get involved in a fight with heavy armour!
hence ‘the need for speed’👍
IIRC, Scorpion had a 76mm L23 gun but there was a Cockerell 90mm offered.
Cheers
👍Malaysia,Nigeria,Indonesia and Venezuela are the ones I can find with the 90mm.
Cheers👍
That was a fast tracked vehicle armoured against small arms only..…it was for finding the enemy.
Bollocks, I was a Tanky in the cheiften days. In no was was it more mobile than today’s British tanks.
And from what I know of the new generation of British tanks they have far better protection than the rest of the tanks in the Ukraine.
Fire power is almost the same, although it’s rifled gun is not compatible with the German and American ammo. But it’s HESH round has an unrivalled reputation at dealing with both Armoured, soft skin vehicles and buildings.
Yes the battlefield is changing but we are trying to evaluate a battlefield in which neither side controls the air.
And our governments are expecting the Ukrainian s to use western tactics without western air support.
CA Manouevre in Ukraine conflict. The Russians did not invade Ukraine with Combined Arms (CA) manouevre in Feb 2022, and did not fight that way in the following months (and years!), yet surely they had at least got air parity? Might there be another reason? Lack of CA training? Lack of trust in tactical level commanders (COs and OCs) to exercise the judgement and initiative required of CA operations?
Weight. Dr Jack Watling of RUSI, postulates after very careful analysis that the ideal weight for future tanks is a very specific 54 tonnes (forcesdotnet of 9 Oct 23), rather than Colonel Stuart’s figure of 40-45 tonnes (where did that figure come from?). I think it highly unlikely that you could procure 3 or 4 ‘lighter’ tanks for the cost of a current 70 tonnes+ leviathan, even if were to be a bit less sophisticated.
Sophistication. It seems risky to make future tanks less sophisticated (just to reduce unit price). What features would you dispense with? Surely there would be a capability reduction which would reduce their effectiveness and increase their vulnerability? Western philosophy has always been for equipment to have quality rather than quantity.
Russians attacked on the cheap.
There is no way that a 40-50t tank will cost less than 2/3 of a 70t ones, but there are other considerations that are difficult to measure regarding real cost, support vehicles, transporters all matter for the overall cost that we don’t know.
There is no way a smaller tank will be less sophisticated, It needs APS and anti drone systems, it needs guided rounds, it needs unmanned turret.
Maybe it do not need high speed kinetic gun, maybe it can go with 2 or 3 crew, some will be drones/robots, it will need less fuel. some trade offs.
All very fair points. The trouble with dispensing with the tank cannon and just using ATGMs is the number of rounds carried will be much reduced and the vulnerability of the launcher to enemy fire unless it is a pop-up or fold-down launcher like FV438 had.
It also becomes a lot more expensive per shot.
It it’s an interesting discussion what is the threat..traditionally you had:
direct fire large calibre high velocity kinetic energy based weapons..these require significant armour to defeat but you can generally know which direction they are coming from..so heavy frontal armour works…
Now the premise of this argument around reducing MBTs is that there are less of these weapons on the battlefield and so they are a lesser threat..therefore reduce the fontal armour….sounds logical..but what happens if you do say reduce the fontal armour and only produce a 40 ton vehicles that are protected from say 40mm high velocity kinetic energy weapons….well then all we have done is gone back 80 years..and we would likely see a battlefield full of medium cal weapons designed to kill these lighter tanks…after suddenly a light towed antitank gun becomes potentially viable again ( towed antitank guns lost viability because you cannot tow and manhandle a 100mm+ weapon)…especially if we have light armoured vehicles protected against Heat based weapons via active defence systems…heavy frontal armour exists because of the historic threats on a battlefield..they are still available…
The best way to manage drones is via anti drone weapons and the best way to defeat top attack HEAT based weapons is with active defence systems…not rebalancing armour as you cannot rebalance physical armour enough to be meaningful in all directions and you simply open up the threat of hight velocity weapons in the 50-100mm range.
The problem with most active protection systems, is they need reloading. You then get to the naval problem with vls systems. Do you pull out of action because your APS is out of ammo, even though you haven’t fired a shot? Do the enemy go to the US navy doctrine of firing 2 missiles at every target?
Having massive frontal armour only helps if the enemy is in front of you. The problem with drones & loitering munitions is that they usually aren’t. Add to the fact that humans have a bad habit of not looking up. With a fin round, you will fire at what you can see. A smart round may target the engine, turret top or tracks instead & the person firing it may not even see the target itself.at the time.
If you want to attack and hold land, you need tanks as part of your integrated force. Drones will be countered with more sophiscated electronic jamming and rapid fire low level anti air guns.
If we go down the route of a lighter tank such as the Polish PL-01 concept tank at 35t, which is based on the CV90-120. It certainly doesn’t have the armour protection to counter Soviet era Main Battle Tanks (MBTs), even an old T55 could take it out! Many “Developing/3rd World Countries” have a number of these knocking around. However, with a bit of development it could!
If we followed the Soviet/Russian design philosophy of relatively weak armour protected by Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) blocks to make a lighter tank. It would add about 5t to 10t (depending on the type of ERA) in weight for full coverage to the PL-01. It still isn’t as good as passive armour though. But if an active protection system (APS) is also included. Then that is effectively another layer of armour protection.
The Trophy is a battle proven APS. However cannot defend against a MBT’s armour piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) or Fin round for short. (Nor a RP-7 dropped from 100m above it apparently, plus the Trophy’s radar has a dead zone directly above the vehicle.) As the fragmented tungsten chunks have next to no effect on the high speed Fin round. Also it has a non-guaranteed affect against a laser guided shell or bomb. The only system that has publicly proven it has some effect is the Iron Fist APS. Which uses a different type of kill effector, based around the explosive concussive effect.
The current Iron Fist effector is more like a mortar round, where a turret points it and its fired unguided ballistically towards the threat. It has a mechanically timed/impact fuze to initiate the warhead when it intercepts the target. The effector detonates, generating a concussive shock wave that is designed to crush the weapon’s guidance and fuzing, plus can cut ATGMS in to chunks. Which makes the incoming threat ineffective, where it just bounces of the armour. It has a similar effect on a tank’s HEAT rounds. Demonstrating similar effects on laser guided bombs, where it has destroyed the guidance and fuze. But it has a negligible effect against the Fin round. Though it did a couple of times show it can slightly deflect the Fin round.
The deflection of a Fin round does show what could be possible. If the effector had a larger explosive to generate a larger concussive force. Then it should be able to deflect the Fin round more easily. Though to what extent will be closely guarded. But it does open up more possibilities. Especially if the effector had some steerability after firing, then it could be aimed to detonate below the Fin round, making it deflect its path up and over the vehicle.
FPV and UAV quadcopter drones are really small and very difficult to spot until they are right on top of the victim. To counter this threat you require very good EW, but also a means of early detection. Which would allow a weapon with a very high elevation to kinetically counter this threat. Which is something the MoD are currently investigating.
A modern APS will give you the passive and active sensors to detect FPV/UAV drones at a reasonable stand-off distance. Thereby allowing a remotely operated weapons system (RWS) to engage the threat. Before it gets in to range to drop a grenade down an open hatch for example!
I still see the requirement for a MBT type of platform. That has the ability to take and hold ground, whilst also being able to defend that ground. An up-armoured IFV like the CV90-120 (PL-01) with the next gen APS may be the answer. But once the ERA has been expended it will have to rely on its passive armour, which usually only provides a frontal arc protection against 30mm Fin rounds and 14.5mm AP rounds along the sides and rear.
There are a number of caveats for this type of vehicle replacing a MBT. The first is that the PL-01 uses a unmanned turret that incorporates an autoloader for the main gun. However, this may be safer for the crew, but there is an issue if the turret’s electronic optics get knocked out. As there’s no way for a manual back up. There is also the issue of situational awareness. As it means the crew must remain in the vehicle to operate. Whereas a manned turret you can at least stick your head out if needed.
Secondly the vehcile is tall at 2.8m, whereas a Chally 2 is 2.5 without the RWS. But perhaps the most important caveat is whether an Iron Fist type of effector can actually protect the vehicle against a Fin round? If it can’t, then to protect the crew, you need armour and lots of it, with the right proportions and mass to block a Fin round. If the DM53 Fin round is said to be able to penetrate 650 to 750mm of RHS at 2km. You will need at least 1m worth of armour to protect your vehicle to make sure there is no spalling.
Thirdly there’s a driver’s hatch and the rear access door. How will the main gun ammunition be stored inside the main vehicle. That allows the crew to escape if the main hull has been penetrated and the ammo may cook off?
I guess you could like the T14 Armata create an armoured capsule that provides crew protection against a modern MBT’s Fin round. With sufficient tertiary armour to protect key parts such as the engine from 30mm Fin rounds and blast damage. Which would be inherently tougher than an up-armoured IFV. The tank will still weigh over 50t though.
Rafael is working on a development of Tropy that can deal with fin rounds.
Bit of a pointless discussion in many ways. We know already what the British Army’s tank for the next 2-3 decades will be.
I seem to recall that CR2 LEP (which became the CR3 project) was expected to leave service in 2040. Not sure if that is still the intention. I could see it running on well after 2040.
But Concept work for its successor should start by 2030 or thereabouts as it still takes around 10 years from Concept work to ISD.
It has always been an arms race between tank designers and tank killers.
The current situation is just the latest iteration of this on going battle,
However I do agree that MBT have got too heavy and seriously need to shed several tons.
‘UK out of the tank game within the next 10 years’? So, by 2034 at the latest?
Over the next 6 years, some 148 CR3s are being built, converted from CR2; it is not impossible that a few more CR2s might be converted if that were advocated in the latest SDSR. Not sure about CR3-based Driver Training Tanks – have not heard of any such order – maybe the CR2 versions would be updated?
Then what from 2030 onwards for our tank industry? REME will be crying out for replacement of CRARRV – 81 were built 1988-1993. Its protection levels are below par and it will generally just be worn out after some 40 years service. Will need replacement not an upgrade.
The Sappers might lobby for upgrade or replacement of their 33 Titans and 33 Trojans, which were built in c2003-2004.
Concept work for CR3’s replacement should be well underway by 2030 and British industry such as RBSL (and maybe GDUK?) should be ‘on the case’. They may even build a Techology Demonstrator as a PV project?
I think there will be work for the British tank industry within the next 10 years.
It already is. At least sovereign capability: it do not make or research guns, it do not research armor, it do not have APS. Maybe 2030 will that change but i doubt it. 2030 is just around the corner. There are more important capabilities: Tempest, the Navy including seabed, Space race, Boxer, Ajax development, artillery, anti drone and pro drone, robotisation. All of this will take precedence for what is now a niche.
Ok Napoleon,let’s look at this you called the tank the centre piece and now niche.
the tank is an integral part of a BG just as is all the other arms involved all rely on each other to fight and survive,
Aircraft
Helicopters
Recce
Infantry IFV/AFV
Tanks
Engineers
Artillery
Signals,logistics,REME
and all the add ons I’ve missed
yes even drones will now be in there and like all organisations it will constantly learn and adapt as will the equipment !
Now in 20 yrs or so give us your view of a NATO BG designed to take and hold ground?
Well the tank was the centerpiece but not anymore, this is probably the first time that Britain do not have a future tech tank project running in decades, which means it lost part of its importance.
You should go to politics by not quantifying who are the losers and the winners of constant adaptation.
You followed well the rules of Sir Humphrey of a good politician: don’t say or do anything courageous! as you certainly noticed i have no political capabilities.
BG 20 years will have legacy tanks, lots of missiles many of them NLOS with up to 500km range eventually more, land and air drones.
Basically Artillery -including missiles will be expanded considerably as the anti missile and anti drone. Space recon with capability to launch satellites(SAR radar/EO) anytime will also be crucial to achieve transparent battlefield. Due to increase in range that the enemy will be hit and counter battery, it is essential.
The emphasis is a change from direct fires to indirect fires made possible by the increase precision of indirect fires, also increase in range – 50kg missiles with 50km range for example and their ease of production compared to complex “archers” systems.
Oh well! I suppose that was my fault for asking😂
Hehe
You do realise that a BG Lt Col will not be getting involved in 50/500 km missiles! He will be concerned about and reacting to what is happening 5kms in front of him to which he may have to deal with instantly let alone anything else. His is the tactical battle not strategic battle fought by brigade and division commanders.
I read BG as battle group that could be a corps level unit the usual operational level as you talked about integration of helicopter, aircraft and artillery and we are talking about about overall importance of a tank in an army.
Well it just goes to show your ignorance then doesn’t it?
What I told you was the tank is an integral part of any BG I was expecting you to tell me what you thought would replace in say 20/30 yrs but hay ho it seems you have no idea except fantasy rockets. Cherio!
A Battle Group (BG) is an all-arms grouping commanded by a Lt Col. It is based on his own unit, be it an Infantry Battalion or an armoured regiment, with certain sub-units detached and others attached. The CO of an Inf bn when forming a BG might lose one Warrior company but gain a tank squadron, and some combat engineers (RE), maybe an AD Det and might have some artillery in Direct Support.
A BG is a tactical level (not operational level) grouping within a brigade, part of a division.
It certainly is not Corps Tps.
😳 Noooi, not Corps! BGs are sub Brigade level.
The UK does research armour – dstl is looking at electric armour and ceramic plating and has done for a few years. It does not matter if a UK company does not make APS – we buy it in. Much of a modern tank is bought-in.
Fair point about guns – if we are not doing R&D and have lost all manufacturing, then we buy in tank guns – we are doing that with CR3. It does not mean we have lost our ‘tank industry’ which is what the article is about. We have gone from having tank factories to having AFV assembly halls – but they still do the job of churning out AFVs, albeit with more bought-in content.
All the capabilities you mention are important. Upgrading our CR2s to the CR3 build standard and then developing a successor (with hopefully some export potential) is also important.
A while ago English China Clay developed an armour from the waste product of refining China clay. It was an aeriated ceramic made into blocks. It was very light, but it could stop Fin and Heat rounds pretty effectively. The real issue was the size of the block required to stop a 120mn Fin round. Which if I remember correctly required a depth of about 1m.
Unsurprisingly I guess, is that a HESH round would cause the brick to collapse. Leaving a huge hole.
This was more than 15 years ago. So I wonder if there’s any scope of reinvestigating the material and concept?
This harks back to Giffard Martels outline doctrine of ‘swarms of cruiser tanks’, which was in part due to severe finacial constraints. Theae were to be supported by a (much) smaller number of heavies. Ironic how we appear to be back where we were in the 1920s. The RE Journal recently reprinted one of his articles on defence procurement – in the words of a senior Sapper, as true today as it was whem written over100 yeara ago. Is it not high time we did our homework and stopped buying whatever a sales team or consultant tells ua we need?
Do your homework challenge is better protected than either the leopard or abrams due to its Dorchester armour it also hold the record for the longest tank on tank kill also now it’s been upgrade to the smooth bore 120mm it’s given the challenger even more distance more than the leopard and abrams where the challenger falls short and not by much is speed and mobility
“less expensive, and more numerous MBTs in the 40-45 tonne category featuring remotely controlled turrets, crews in heavily protected compartments in the hull away from ammunition storage, a more even distribution of armour to counter the 360-degree threat, and extensive use of APS and counter UAV systems.”
One thing for certain, this will NOT be “less expensive” than the current range of MBTs, and you will NOT get more of them.
If you want more armoured direct fire guns then you’re realistically looking at a lighter, less well armoured medium tank, a latter day T-34 or Sherman if you will, which means numbers to offset the fact they’ll be easier to eliminate.
In fact if you assume the genius (such as it is) of the British Army is expeditionary warfare then we could be looking at a 105mm gun on the Ajax Chassis as the Americans are looking at for their MPF….?
The Booker is a light tank/fire support vehicle for airborne units that will help them till the MBTs arrive with the armoured relief forces! It is not seen as a replacement for the M1s.
I believe it’s 40+ tons and not air-droppable? In fact the US Army don’t refer to it as a light tank it’s regarded as more of an assault gun.
“The M10 Booker is an armored vehicle that is intended to support our Infantry Brigade Combat Teams by suppressing and destroying fortifications, gun systems and trench routes, and then secondarily providing protection against enemy armored vehicles.”
Now that sounds to me like the sort of thing we could do with in numbers either based on a Boxer or Ajax Chassis. Given the available infrastructure in Eastern Europe (our likely theatre) it would get there quicker and be more mobile. We know the Ukrainians have compared the mobility of their Western MBTs unfavourably with Soviet era T-55, T-62 and T-72. The bestest most survivable shootiest tank in the world is no good if there aren’t enough of them and they can’t manoeuvre on the battlefield. The last war should have taught us that.
Furthermore a Medium Tank/Assault Gun (a latter day StuG III if you will) would be even more suited to out of area operations (Global Britain) than a 70-80 ton MBT.
There is a very good video on the Booker on TWZ go to the index and look up tanks. You are correct it doesn’t seem to be dropped but it is airmobile inside C17. Again it states it is a rapid deployable system that is a stop gap for the infantry till the big boys arrive and then would be used against bunkers etc. It essentially replaces the old Sheridan.
I have not read anywhere where a Ukrainian tank crew has said they would prefer to be in a T55/T62/T72 over a western tank.No vehicles move in the mud season over there and experienced crews tend not to get bogged down.
Of the total order of 500+ only 33 are slated for the 82nd Airborne. The remainder are slated for the Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (wheeled). Given we’re replacing Bulldog and Warrior with Boxer and with wheeled artillery, our Brigades are more resembling the US IBCT which would make an Ajax or Boxer based 105mm a better fit and just keep a battalion of something heavier at Div or Corps level?
Not being rude mate but that has been discussed over and over in previous posts👍
Ah, General Carter’s Strike Brigade.
The tank still has a future. Albeit a future of increased top attack weapons defences, APS and automatic air defence gun/missile/directed energy and ECM turrets.
The direct fire of a tank is irreplaceable. What other vehicle can take and hold ground and dominate all other vehicles around it?
The tank simply needs to adjust and remodel itself to the drone age, once designs have done that it is still very relevant.
Throughout the tanks 100+ year history it has been a continuously evolving battle between a tanks protections, armament, mobility and counter measures Vs all the myriad of weapons hoping to retake it out. Why do so many weapon systems target tanks? Because they have the capacity to dominate a battlefield.
A lot of weapon systems also target the dismounted soldier! Everything on the battlefield is a target of multiple weapon types.
Yes, the first anti-tank weapon came into service in 1918 and there have been many more sophisticated counters developed since. However, the tank is still there on the battlefield.
Reminds me of how Elephants used to be the big thing for the Ancients.